Interesting Pinotti Interview

[Mellow Velo]

I don't spend that much time here. I prefer the racing forum. But I recently got caught out by "Mellow Velo" cheating with you against my true love (another forum) - MV's a slapper too I hasten to add.

No Omerta as far as the clinic is concerned, that's for sure, R.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

McGwire when he was called to testify about taking steroids he told the committee that he wasn't here to talk about the past. When Tony Blair was confronted about the Iraq war and the lies told he told people to 'move on', this is a leitmotif with people who have something to hide and a reason to not have the past investigated.

With Pinotti's past (SD, Lampre, T-Mob/HGH) I can understand why he might not want people digging around.

DDL, like Vino and Ricco is an easy target to attack, why is he so angry about dopers coming back into the sport but silent about working for ex-dopers like Holm and Aldag?

I find any claims by riders to not know what is going on in their teams pretty laughable, Millar who had his best year post ban at SD, had absolutely no idea about Mayo, Ricco, Piepoli etc, Pinotti never saw anything untoward...

Seriously - is he meant to butt in during the middle of the interview and say "I know you haven't asked me about Aldag, Holm but let me tell you....."

Well theres nothing stopping anyone from digging in to his career - actually I have 'dug around' Pinotti and besides the teams he has been on I have found nothing.

Again - he never said (he wasn't asked) that "he did no know anything" - this is what he was asked and his reply:

And you hadn’t seen team-mates or opponents doping with your own eyes?

No.

 

[md2020]

Exactly how angry does someone have to be at dopers to prove that they are clean? Perhaps, instead of dope tests, riders should just be shown a picture of Armstrong. An insufficient display of rage would count as a positive test.

My comment was unrelated to whether or not Pinotti is clean or not, although I can see where that insinuation can be made. My point is that by marginalizing the doping in the past he makes it appear that he didn't consider it a problem at the time. If supposed clean riders don't care that they compete against dopers then why should we care?

 

[Mambo95]

McGwire when he was called to testify about taking steroids he told the committee that he wasn't here to talk about the past. When Tony Blair was confronted about the Iraq war and the lies told he told people to 'move on', this is a leitmotif with people who have something to hide and a reason to not have the past investigated.

With Pinotti's past (SD, Lampre, T-Mob/HGH) I can understand why he might not want people digging around.

DDL, like Vino and Ricco is an easy target to attack, why is he so angry about dopers coming back into the sport but silent about working for ex-dopers like Holm and Aldag?

I find any claims by riders to not know what is going on in their teams pretty laughable, Millar who had his best year post ban at SD, had absolutely no idea about Mayo, Ricco, Piepoli etc, Pinotti never saw anything untoward...

Your problem is that you want everyone to be doping to justify your preconceptions,

Anyone succeeding clean, is denounced by you as a doper.

You claim to be fighting against doping. How are you doing that?

What would convince you that clean riders can win? Really, lay down what would convince you a rider is clean. If you can't try to do that then you're just some loon like those people who thinks the royal family are all lizards

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Seriously - is he meant to butt in during the middle of the interview and say "I know you haven't asked me about Aldag, Holm but let me tell you....."

Well theres nothing stopping anyone from digging in to his career - actually I have 'dug around' Pinotti and besides the teams he has been on I have found nothing.

Again - he never said (he wasn't asked) that "he did no know anything" - this is what he was asked and his reply:

I'm sorry but he was just practicing Ketman on the issue of anti-doping. Say the right things, throw the right person under the bus and defend the status quo.

The failure to follow up on who he works for and what he has or hasn't seen is the fault of Friebe.

 

[Altitude]

it made me angry when he said there "there is no point now", so let him keep 7 doped TdF wins. FFS, there is every point to take them off him, off Contador or Landis, off whoever has been shown to have doped to win. I suppose Pinotti thinks Marion Jones should have kept her Olympic titles too.

Pathetic Pinotti, absolute Omerta, ok to talk about Gunderson now while they are building the gallows.

A doper who beats other dopers is still the rightful winner.

 

[Benotti69]

Your problem is that you want everyone to be doping to justify your preconceptions,

Anyone succeeding clean, is denounced by you as a doper.

You claim to be fighting against doping. How are you doing that?

What would convince you that clean riders can win? Really, lay down what would convince you a rider is clean. If you can't try to do that then you're just some loon like those people who thinks the royal family are all lizards

that's not too far from the truth. it's their bloodline.

As for Mrs Jong Murphy's opinion of the extent in doping in the sport? why not? How many bad apples to need to be seen in the cycling barrel to figure out that it looks rotten to bottom. Fuentes x2, Ferarri x2, US Postal, Trek, Landis Allegation, T-Mobile, Phonak, Liberty Sigueros, Contador postive, DiLuca Positives x 3, Riccó, Vino, Basso Ullrich, Shleck F, Kohl, Sinkewiez, Frei, Mosquera, UCi bribery.........etc..etc...etc..etc..etc..etc..etc..

How about some evidence that speaks about cleanliness in the sport. Garmin? there's big doubts there. Sky? no way! So if there is cynicism and doubt about the sport is well justified and the riders are not doing anything to change that.

PS i am in no way answering for MJM. I wouldn't dare do that, but wanted to add my opinion to your post.

 

[Benotti69]

A doper who beats other dopers is still the rightful winner.

that myth and thinking was dispelled a long long time ago.

 

[Mambo95]

How about some evidence that speaks about cleanliness in the sport.

OK. Let's work on this. What can a rider do to give evidence that they are clean?

Put up some reasonable goals and maybe we can get a framework for the good guys.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm sorry but he was just practicing Ketman on the issue of anti-doping. Say the right things, throw the right person under the bus and defend the status quo.

The failure to follow up on who he works for and what he has or hasn't seen is the fault of Friebe.

I would agree with the highlighted.

As for Pinotti - if you follow his twitter he is quite outspoken on lots of riders and indeed was probably the only Pro to be accurate and understated about Ricco.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

that's not too far from the truth. it's their bloodline.

As for Mrs Jong Murphy's opinion of the extent in doping in the sport? why not? How many bad apples to need to be seen in the cycling barrel to figure out that it looks rotten to bottom. Fuentes x2, Ferarri x2, US Postal, Trek, Landis Allegation, T-Mobile, Phonak, Liberty Sigueros, Contador postive, DiLuca Positives x 3, Riccó, Vino, Basso Ullrich, Shleck F, Kohl, Sinkewiez, Frei, Mosquera, UCi bribery.........etc..etc...etc..etc..etc..etc..etc..

How about some evidence that speaks about cleanliness in the sport. Garmin? there's big doubts there. Sky? no way! So if there is cynicism and doubt about the sport is well justified and the riders are not doing anything to change that.

PS i am in no way answering for MJM. I wouldn't dare do that, but wanted to add my opinion to your post.

That's about the sum of it

 

[sadfitty]

OK. Let's work on this. What can a rider do to give evidence that they are clean?

Put up some reasonable goals and maybe we can get a framework for the good guys.

That's the sad thing. No rider can really prove they're clean, they can only be proven dirty.

 

[Benotti69]

OK. Let's work on this. What can a rider do to give evidence that they are clean?

Put up some reasonable goals and maybe we can get a framework for the good guys.

Reasonable. Why should they be reasonable? Their doping actions are not reasonable.

you know if the riders cared about proving to the fans that the sport is clean they would do whatever it takes, especially after what is has gone through, is going through and is about to go through. I mean when it was mentioned about nighttime surprise tests they were up in arms, why? how many nighttime tests that catch no dopers before its gets dropped, 1 season 2 max, if they are not doping? I didn't hear a furore over x-raying winners bikes at the end of a race?

You see it is not difficult. If you truly want something you will do almost anything to get it and it works both ways. Dope yourself to the gills to win, cheat, hide the blood bags. stope the bus in the middle of nowhere to transfuse, attach your heart to a monitor so you wake up in the middle of the night if your heart rates drops really low and ride your bike in the room for an hour.

So it works both ways. They made such an effort to dope. Now they should make such an effort to prove they are clean. Why not? they want us to watch the sport get the latest bike, buy the sponsors jersey, products, tune in etc...

 

[Mambo95]

Reasonable. Why should they be reasonable? Their doping actions are not reasonable.

you know if the riders cared about proving to the fans that the sport is clean they would do whatever it takes, especially after what is has gone through, is going through and is about to go through. I mean when it was mentioned about nighttime surprise tests they were up in arms, why? how many nighttime tests that catch no dopers before its gets dropped, 1 season 2 max, if they are not doping? I didn't hear a furore over x-raying winners bikes at the end of a race?

You see it is not difficult. If you truly want something you will do almost anything to get it and it works both ways. Dope yourself to the gills to win, cheat, hide the blood bags. stope the bus in the middle of nowhere to transfuse, attach your heart to a monitor so you wake up in the middle of the night if your heart rates drops really low and ride your bike in the room for an hour.

So it works both ways. They made such an effort to dope. Now they should make such an effort to prove they are clean. Why not? they want us to watch the sport get the latest bike, buy the sponsors jersey, products, tune in etc...

I have one question. How can a rider convince you he is clean?

I'll tone that down if you want. Who can a rider persuade you that they are clean?

If you can't think of an answer then you're just a fanatic - stuck in your ways.

The insinuations against long term anti-doping advocates such as Gilbert, Pinotti and Moncoutie, suggests to me that that the Clinic is a place has no interest in anti-doping. It's only interested in slander.

 

[SirLes]

My comment was unrelated to whether or not Pinotti is clean or not, although I can see where that insinuation can be made. My point is that by marginalizing the doping in the past he makes it appear that he didn't consider it a problem at the time. If supposed clean riders don't care that they compete against dopers then why should we care?

My reading of it is that he had accepted the fact he would be beaten by dopers a long time ago when he entered the profession but decide to continue anyway because he still enjoyed it. He was in the fortunate and unusual position of having an alternative career so perhaps felt less pressure to chase results and like Bassons used his education to make better judgements.

The whole "no point now" bit to me is not to try and protect Armstrong but saying that he doesn't feel it will not have any real effect on the current situation in cycling whereas if it had happened 6 plus years ago......

I thought he was quite robust about is views on the UCI and the problem of promoting on the one hand and cleaning up the sport on the other. Treading dangerous ground for a current cyclist imo.

Finaly I thought it interesting that he was convinced of Zirbel's innocence. Would he have been as strong in his defence of another rider who might be banned for having small quantites of a banned substance in their blood which they claim to have been accidently ingested?

 

[The Hitch]

I would agree with the highlighted.

As for Pinotti - if you follow his twitter he is quite outspoken on lots of riders and indeed was probably the only Pro to be accurate and understated about Ricco.

What did Pinnoti say about Ricco?

 

[cyclingmad]

politics of doping

What you expect is for a clean rider to go in front of a camera and spout all of the rumours they've heard without proof. Would you stand up at work, without prompting and say everything you may have heard.

This is a good point. Ask yourself what would you do at work when you hear rumours or are suspicious of someone. What personal risks do you take exposing it and what do you gain from it. That is the situation Pinotti is in and in the circumstances of the interview say a lot in helping the anti doping cause
All Pinotti knows about LA is 2nd hand information and rumour so in the interview only provides an opinion without justification "he thinks he cheated" that is a lot more than any other riders are prepared to be vocal about.
On Di Luca he provided much heavier criticism because there are a lot of proven facts. He implies Di Luca knows corrupt people and how to be successful as a criminal so gets offered a deal by the authorities like a junkie revealing their dealers. The "supposed innocent" Zirbel makes a mistake and having nothing useful to negotiate with and doesn't know how to look after himself in a corrupt environment so loses heavily. Thee situations are the result of a problem with the sports administrators not the riders.

We don't know how much Pinotti really knows about doping taking place even on teams he has been in and in speaking out he needs to be careful with the quality of evidence as this affects the risk he is taking when making any accusation or even giving an opinion.
In the interview he said only that he hasn't seen doping on teams in person there is no reason to disbelieve this statement. Being on the same team doesn't guarantee you are involved in the same thing. Risks are always involved in approaching anyone on the team to do something corrupt and the politics in the team can mean not everyone is in agreement on everything. Someone making public statements about anti doping openly is likely to be kept in the dark about what is going on for obvious reasons.

Poor leadership in the sport creates the corruption, politics, fraud etc you only have to think of countries and workplaces with the same problems to see the same theme. LA is not a leader of the sport he just pushed the boundaries and gained more than most in doing so. To make LA the image of doping seems a little extreme.
Pinottis point is good the sport should have been able to stop LA long ago. He is also saying destroying LAs credibility now by exposing him has a big impact on the individual and does a lot to both damage and help the reputation of the sport so debatable the result overall improves the image of the sport or preventing future doping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What did Pinnoti say about Ricco?

On his twitter:


Beware of who says "I'm a new man", at his convenience.

http://twitter.com/#!/marcopinotti/status/35032203834429440

 

[Benotti69]

I have one question. How can a rider convince you he is clean?

by spitting in the soup for a start at every opportunity, via the internet, twitter, facebook, t-shirts etc...

I'll tone that down if you want. Who can a rider persuade you that they are clean?

If you can't think of an answer then you're just a fanatic - stuck in your ways.

The insinuations against long term anti-doping advocates such as Gilbert, Pinotti and Moncoutie, suggests to me that that the Clinic is a place has no interest in anti-doping. It's only interested in slander.

Whats wrong with a rider calling out a doper when caught? No one mentioned Contador yet loads of the Peloton put down Riccó without knowing anything apart from what they read in the papers!

How about calling for a riders only union/organisation, no DSs, no former pros but a current pro only union/organistation to resolve the doping?

How about actually taking the initiative instead of waiting for the inevitable softball doping question which is followed by the response of "no i did not see anyone doping".

Why should i or fans provide the solution to what is essentially their problem? They are the ones taking the risk? They risk the bans, suspensions, fines and shame. I could be a vegetable and watch it not caring or i can bet passionate and give vent to my passsion.

They expect me to watch and believe their performances, buy the endorsements, ride the same bikes, jersey, shorts, gloves, shades, helmet etc...


ps i have been to and posted in the 'professional road racing' section, but it is full of idiot posters lots on the level of football fans on the terraces of stadiums. i find the clinic much more intelligent, intuitive, insightful, perceptive and knowledgable.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is a good point. Ask yourself what would you do at work when you hear rumours or are suspicious of someone.

What would you do at work if the rumors you heard suggested that a great many of your fellow workers were engaging in illegal activities which caused as a direct result their paychecks to increase while yours decreased? Would you quietly go along with it for years and just shrug your shoulders (maybe quietly grumble about it a little) and just take it? Or would you look into it more, instead of just pretending that nothing was going on?
It almost defies my imagination that if there are clean riders in the pro peloton they are such sheep to just take it in the backside like that. Where is the righteous indignation?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Exactly how angry does someone have to be at dopers to prove that they are clean? Perhaps, instead of dope tests, riders should just be shown a picture of Armstrong. An insufficient display of rage would count as a positive test.

I guess you have to add a certain number of lines just to indicate your enjoyment of a particular comment

 

[Mambo95]

On his twitter:


Beware of who says "I'm a new man", at his convenience.

http://twitter.com/#!/marcopinotti/status/35032203834429440

He's certainly worth following on twitter for his occasional wry comments regarding doping.

 

[pedaling squares]

B69 & M95:

Good conversation, but you're starting to trickle off topic. Let's try to keep this about the Pinotti interview or at least about Pinotti himself and not a general account of pro riders.

As for the interview itself, it's important to remember that we likely only read an edited version of the conversation. Pinotti saying that the time to act was years ago may simply be his way of saying that the way to have the biggest impact on doping in the peloton may have been to investigate the man while he was still a champion. I don't know exactly what he meant, and I don't think we can draw any one inference from the transcript in the article.

 

[hrotha]

I thought it was a good interview. He said several things we often talk about here in the Clinic - particularly that the UCI can't both police and promote the sport. He gave credibility to Landis' allegations regarding protected riders, and pretty much acknowledged Armstrong is/was dirty, while still putting most of the blame on the UCI for the way they dealt (or didn't deal) with doping in the 90s. Personally I found it very refreshing to read a current pro say all that stuff.

Could the journalist have asked him about Aldag and Holm? Sure, but the question wouldn't have been very relevant. Aldag and Holm doped as riders at a time where that's what people did, and before Pinotti turned pro. Note he said that's when things started to change or at least when change became possible, so his answer would have been something along the lines of "Those were different times, what matters to me is what they do as DS's". And I'd be inclined to agree, actually. I don't understand why everyone attacks Riis the DS for doping as a rider in the 90s, when what people should be bringing up is Jaksche.

Still, Saunier Duval is very recent, and that team had so many superchargers it's hard to imagine it was all either individual doping or a top secret program for those in the know. It's possible - even in the worst years of US Postal, not everyone was deemed worthy of knowing -, but I wish the journalist would have insisted on this point.

 

[python]

by spitting in the soup for a start at every opportunity, via the internet, twitter, facebook, t-shirts etc...




Whats wrong with a rider calling out a doper when caught? No one mentioned Contador yet loads of the Peloton put down Riccó without knowing anything apart from what they read in the papers!

How about calling for a riders only union/organisation, no DSs, no former pros but a current pro only union/organistation to resolve the doping?

How about actually taking the initiative instead of waiting for the inevitable softball doping question which is followed by the response of "no i did not see anyone doping".

Why should i or fans provide the solution to what is essentially their problem? They are the ones taking the risk? They risk the bans, suspensions, fines and shame. I could be a vegetable and watch it not caring or i can bet passionate and give vent to my passsion.

They expect me to watch and believe their performances, buy the endorsements, ride the same bikes, jersey, shorts, gloves, shades, helmet etc...


ps i have been to and posted in the 'professional road racing' section, but it is full of idiot posters lots on the level of football fans on the terraces of stadiums. i find the clinic much more intelligent, intuitive, insightful, perceptive and knowledgable.

I thought it was a good interview. He said several things we often talk about here in the Clinic - particularly that the UCI can't both police and promote the sport. He gave credibility to Landis' allegations regarding protected riders, and pretty much acknowledged Armstrong is/was dirty, while still putting most of the blame on the UCI for the way they dealt (or didn't deal) with doping in the 90s. Personally I found it very refreshing to read a current pro say all that stuff.

Could the journalist have asked him about Aldag and Holm? Sure, but the question wouldn't have been very relevant. Aldag and Holm doped as riders at a time where that's what people did, and before Pinotti turned pro. Note he said that's when things started to change or at least when change became possible, so his answer would have been something along the lines of "Those were different times, what matters to me is what they do as DS's". And I'd be inclined to agree, actually. I don't understand why everyone attacks Riis the DS for doping as a rider in the 90s, when what people should be bringing up is Jaksche.

Still, Saunier Duval is very recent, and that team had so many superchargers it's hard to imagine it was all either individual doping or a top secret program for those in the know. It's possible - even in the worst years of US Postal, not everyone was deemed worthy of knowing -, but I wish the journalist would have insisted on this point.

+1.
two thoughtful, honest posts apparently representing very different, almost opposing views on what pinotti said.

yes, a good discussion can take place without trolling. and whining. bravo gentlemen.